Here we go again. If I was feeling really lazy (and I am) I could just go back to last year’s post, or the year before that or… you get the point. This year is no different, and the UN-illustrious Human Rights Wrongs Commission yesterday once again held its session with one special agenda, Agenda 7, on Israel’s purported human rights violations.
Here is the Israeli Embassy to the UNHRC’s terse press release on this disgraceful spectacle:
While 19 million Syrians, Iraqi and Yemeni are fleeing their destroyed cities and homes; while Daesh and Al Qaida are expanding their terror networks in the Middle East, Africa and Europe; while North Korea and Iran are testing their ballistic capabilities; the OHCHR continues to find it relevant to allocate its limited resources of time, personnel and money to produce six reports on Israel, and the HRC will consider five resolutions in the context of a dedicated Agenda Item, singling out Israel.
Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council adopted 61 resolutions condemning Israel, compared with 73 other country resolutions. This obsession with Israel and disregard for the Human Rights of millions must stop.
Ambassador Eviatar Manor, Permanent Representative of Israel to the UN in Geneva, remarked: “In the course of the last three weeks, thousands demonstrated on the Place des Nations demanding the UN’s attention. But we are sorry to tell them that they are wasting their time. The Human Rights Council is only obsessed with the fate of the Palestinians, and prefers to close its eyes to other critical Human Rights violations. It consistently disregards the human rights of Israelis. In fact, it does not care for them at all.”
“Israel will not cooperate with these biased mechanisms”
This Monday, the Human Rights Council will again conduct a debate under the infamous Item 7 of its Agenda, an item that singles out Israel and glaringly discriminate Israelis, who do not enjoy the protection of the HRC.
Ambassador Manor said: “As long as the HRC does not undergo a behavioral therapy to treat its obsession with Israel, we will not cooperate with these biased mechanisms!”
I could leave it at that because Ambassador Manor has covered all the important points, but I won’t, because there’s much more good stuff to follow.
Tim Marshall, formerly of Sky News and now at his own blog “The What & The Why” writes a very good piece about the newest candidate for the position of “Special Rapporteur” on the Palestinian territories, (see this UN Watch link) and the UN’s double standards against Israel in Israel: Human Rights and UN Wrongs:
Imagine: You’re on trial and you discover the judge appointed to hear the case has already decided you are guilty and has a long history of publicly saying so. That appears to be the UN Human Rights Council approach to justice when it comes to one particular country. They seem to do a variation of the old trick of saying ‘We will hold a free and open trial and at the end of it we will find you guilty’.
The council’s first choice to become the new Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territories is criminologist Penny Green. She is a professor of law and globalisation at Queen Mary University of London.
Professor Green’s views on Israel are not unique. She is on record as saying that Israel has a “criminal government”, and she believes it is “time to stand up against Israeli state violence”. She supports the total boycott of Israel, wants Hamas de-listed as a terrorist organisation, and has wondered why the British and Americans have not begun “bombing Israel for its massacres”.
She is entitled to her opinion. However, surely anyone, even if they supported these views, might understand that holding them disqualifies you from impartially judging the behaviour of one of many parties involved in the situation.
She supports the total boycott of Israel.
The Rapporteur’s job as mandated by a 1993 resolution is not to investigate all human rights abuses in Palestine, but only “Israel’s violations”. However, the UN told me that that subsequent procedural changes do not make this stipulation and therefore “it would be perfectly conceivable for a mandate holder to interpret the mandate in a proactive manner… In short, this does not restrict the mandate holder from investigating Palestinian violations as well”.
In the past eight years of 36 statements and reports by the Rapporteur, all 36 have only criticised Israel. No other conflict is investigated by the UN in this twisted manner.
The council’s first choice should not be a surprise. The incumbent in the job is from Indonesia, a country that does not accept the right of one side in the conflict to exist. His predecessor was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
Sadly, Tim Marshall’s excellent piece was cross-posted only at the Jewish Chronicle. I say “sadly” because it would have been much more useful and much more instructive if this had been posted in any mainstream media outlet, where he would not have been preaching to the converted.
However there is a spark of good news. Brian of London at Israellycool has brought us a series of videos of Israeli or pro-Israel activists who were allowed to speak out at the UNHRC in defence of Israel.
I’m going to change the order of the videos from the link and provide you first with the video by the remarkable, outstandingly courageous and eloquent terror survivor Kay Wilson, who survived a vicious, murderous machete attack 5 years ago in which her friend Kristen Luken was murdered. Just listen to her horrific story:
And now listen to her speak out at the UNHRC. I am in awe of Kay’s restraint, her politeness and yet her determination to speak out against the virulent antisemitism on display at the UNHRC:
Another excellent speaker, amongst the others at the link (watch them all, they’re each only a couple of minutes long), is the journalist Arsen Ostrovsky:
Just to emphasise the outrageous double standards at play (in case you hadn’t noticed already) here are some tweets from Brian of London’s timeline reflecting the illegitimacy of the UN farce. Click on the link to read them all (they’re all great!), but here’s a sampling:
The speakers in the above videos give us heart, and even more so the fact noted by Brian of London that the major nations actually boycott this special agenda session – a fact of which I was unaware.
But in the end I can’t help but agree with Brian of London’s conclusion:
I can’t help but think, however, that the entire thing should be boycotted. The major nations boycott this Agenda item 7, only NGO’s like the ones above still show up. I just don’t see how granting it any kind of legitimacy helps us.